The third anniversary of the Russia-Ukraine war is approaching. Fierce bombing, shelling and shooting are still raging on the battlefields and it seems the war will never end. U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump promised to stop the fighting within 24 hours if he were elected and pledged to settle it permanently within 100 days of his inauguration. To end the war in 100 days would be good news for Ukraine, Russia and the world. But how to do it? Trump leaked not a word.
A British newspaper, The Times, has presented four scenarios about how the war could end:
• Ukraine is defeated because of the suspension of foreign security assistance;
• Ukraine is not defeated but accepts a “bad peace agreement”;
• Russia and Ukraine agree to cease fire and negotiate with American mediation;
• Ukraine takes a strong posture in the negotiation but admits Russia’s gains on the battlefields and signs an agreement terminating the war.
Reuters reported that Trump’s advisers have presented three scenarios:
• Freeze current military operation lines;
• Establish non-military zones;
• Establish an autonomous region in eastern Ukraine.
To promote the process of ending the war, I propose developing three principles to guide a feasible way forward, starting with the creation of a special working group to execute United Nations Security Council decisions.
Principle One: The Security Council plays a key role in ending the war, which involves not only the interests of Russia and Ukraine, but also the interests of other parties, including the United States, European Union, NATO member states, China, India and others. Only the UNSC has the authority to mediate the conflict and coordinate the interests of all parties concerned. No country is able to end the war single-handedly, no matter how powerful it is. It will require the joint efforts of all countries in the world. The Security Council’s five permanent, particularly the U.S., should take a leading role in developing a peace plan and feasible course of action.
Principle Two: Take care of both sides’ security concerns. After the Cold War, NATO broke its promise not to expand “an inch” eastward. Instead, it expanded eastward five times in less than 20 years, bringing its membership from 16 to 30 countries. NATO also built military bases and deployed forces on the territories of new member states in a bid to squeeze Russia’s living space as much as possible, moves that directly triggered the war. On the other hand, Ukraine felt threatened by a strong Russia and applied to join NATO for protection. Hence both Ukraine’s and Russia’s security anxieties should be understood and taken into consideration.
Principle Three: Both Russia and Ukraine should make concessions. Given the losses, suffering and current status of the battlefield, neither side can defeat the other in a short time. To save lives and avoid further loss and suffering, both Russia and Ukraine should concede to the reality of the battlefield and sit down to negotiate an armistice agreement.
The UN’s special working Group should be set up to develop a peace plan and restore peace in Ukraine, carry out the routine work of mediation and coordination, execute Security Council decisions and monitor the implementation of agreements reached by the two sides.
Under the principles mentioned above, I propose three end-of-war scenarios:
Scenario One: Allow Ukraine to join NATO and accept Russia’s annexation of Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhe and Kherson. Russia consents to Ukraine’s accession to NATO. Ukraine accepts Russia’s annexation of the four regions and withdraws from Kursk as a tradeoff. The first condition satisfies Ukraine’s desire to join NATO and relieves its fear of a strong Russia; the second frees Russia from its anxiety about NATO’s eastward expansion because the four annexed regions can serve as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. This might be something both sides could accept.
Scenario Two: Ukraine joins NATO with conditions, and the four regions become highly autonomous. Ukraine joins NATO with such conditions as limiting the size of its military, with no other NATO forces to be stationed in Ukraine. As a tradeoff, Russia agrees that the four annexed regions become highly autonomous to serve as a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine also withdraws from Kursk.
Scenario Three: Ukraine withdraws from Kursk and gives up its ambition to join NATO. It becomes a neutral state in perpetuity, and Russia returns the four annexed regions to Ukraine. If Ukraine promises not to join NATO and maintains neutrality, that’s exactly what Russia wants. Russia should be happy to trade the annexed regions for normal relations.
The UN’s special working group should be composed of representatives from all Security Council member states, Ukraine and a special envoy appointed by the UN secretary-general. This structure would increase its credibility. It should be charged with the responsibility to make a peace plan including a cease-fire, phased negotiations and an end-state that can be accepted by Ukraine, Russia and other parties.
I hope the proposals and end-state scenarios suggested above will be conducive to ending the war. Any lasting solution to the conflict will require consultation with all parties concerned and will be much more complex and difficult than putting forth hypothetical scenarios.
Trump’s idea of ending the Russia-Ukraine War in 100 days should be appreciated, encouraged and supported. But its fulfillment is no easy job. Every country should contribute its bit to terminating the war and restoring peace.
